HE DIFFERENT POSSIBILITIES OF EVALUATING A TWORK OF ART: CASE STUDY OF THE

Salvatore Lorusso*1 Foreign Member of the Russian Academy of Natural Sciences

with the collaboration of Angela M. Braida and Andrea Natali

Keywords: evaluating, work of art, Mona Lisa, research

1. Introduction

The purpose of this paper is to highlight the importance of several aspects which are to be considered fundamental in correctly arriving at a final judgement in evaluating a work of art [1-10]. They are: • respect for the “history” that accompanies the art object; • correctness of the terminology which, as such, implies concepts and meanings to be observed and followed; • the methodological path to be used to provide the answer to the specific question that has been put forward, necessarily involving the synergy of different scientific com- petences with respect to the holistic value of the cultural artefact. As regards the much debated subject of attribution and authentication of art works, the following points are discussed: a) the different evaluations that can be given to a work of art to distinguish the dif- ferent degrees of certainty in attribution; b) the corresponding and complete methodological process of evaluation; c) the case study that refers to ’s work, considered to be one of the most prestigious of all time: the “Mona Lisa – Gioconda”, a unique piece in the art world; d) a summary of Leonardo’s art that includes the various versions and copies of his works as reported in archival-bibliographic sources; e) the synthetic outline of the historical and diagnostic-analytical investigation of the oil painting on canvas, the St. Petersburg “Mona Lisa with columns” conducted in order to obtain the correct attribution, as an emblematic example of what has been highlighted above.

* Corresponding author: [email protected] These topics are discussed in the historical-technical Journal “Conservation Sci- ence in Cultural Heritage” in connection with the fundamental importance of interdis- ciplinarity (7-8, 10).

2. The attribution and authentication of art work

A work of art is characterized by a set of values: cultural, historical, aesthetic, artistic, spiritual, symbolic, social, technical, economic, financial, mercantile which also include aspects of merchandising, authenticity, identity, interdisciplinarity and internationalization. These in turn concern different areas of investigation: histor- ical-humanistic, philological-philosophical-social, technical-economic-managerial, legal-identitary. There is no doubt, therefore, that in dealing with the numerous and complex prob- lems in the sector of cultural and environmental assets, there is a need for contribu- tions deriving from different scientific experiences and the involvement of different skills, without leaving aside aspects relating to the employment market where the demand is for more a more practical experience and more transversal and entrepre- neurial skills. The above highlights the importance of interdisciplinarity in the protection and en- hancement of cultural heritage and is especially true when dealing with the attribution of art works. In the specific case of art work attribution, the consequent holistic value of the cul- tural asset is based on the sum value of the individual values; a correct attribution and authentication should therefore establish the corresponding economic-financial- mercantile-market value and ultimately, its price [11]. As regards the reproduction of art, Figure 1 shows the terminology used in the field to distinguish between the different degrees of certainty in the attribution of a work of art [12].

Figure 1. Terminology used in the field to distinguish between the different degrees of certainty in the attribution of a work of art. S. Lorusso, A.M. Braida, A. Natali - The different possibilities of evaluating a work art S. Lorusso, A.M. Braida, A. Natali - The different possibilities

308 in “art ethics andaesthetics”, in the hope that the resulting data and information are color andeven“materiality”. possible toproduceaworkthatisidenticalthe“original” /“authentic”workinform, computer technology, there is no possibility of providing an answer, since it is now attribution. On the other, for the artefact that has been “reproduced” or realized using jective evaluationprovidesauniqueanswerregardingthe degreeofcertaintythe the historical-artistic subjective evaluation completed by the diagnostic-analytical ob bibliographic sources. the analysisofmaterialsworkinquestionand thedataobtainedfrom it isimportanttoascertaintheirprovenancebycomparing thedataobtainedfrom however, thatininvestigatingthecompositionofmaterials,asstatedabove, tion (pathologiespresent,levelofdegradation,etc.).Itshouldbeborneinmind, face and stratigraphy, characterization of the materials, the state of conserva execution. ative elementssuchastheauthor, period,artistic style, iconographyandtechnical analytical technologieswhichwillresultinanobjectiveevaluation. and diagnostic appropriate of use the i.e. methods, scientific of means by work a of ornon-authenticity the authenticity that ofascertaining authentic works,isprecisely titative information. expressed andsummarizedina petence. considerations such as defending their reputation, financial questions and com prejudice can interveneonthepartofexpert,who may beinfluencedbyother determining theprice. thentic”, decreeswhetheritisauthenticornot,providinghisexpertiseandthus between theartisticqualitiesofworkinquestionandhishypothetical“au with his personal critical judgment and, on the basis of evaluative comparisons mented bytherecognizedcompetenceofanevaluator. The artexpert,therefore, aesthetic, iconographic aspects and is a visual evaluation of the artefact comple expert is a subjective evaluation, based on an analysis of the historical, stylistic, in accord. In the art market and world of auction houses, the evaluation carried out by an However, this means ascertaining the conceptual andapplicativelimits that exist On theonehand,for“copy”and/or“fake”any oftheothercategories, This will include a description of themorphological elements regarding the sur b) The workofart,forwhichacorrectlycompletedreportiswritten,includesevalu a) The methodologicalpathincludesthefollowingproceduralsteps[2,11]: 3.  non- fakes and,ingeneral, concerning then thatthecurrentproblem It isevident Art objects are examinedbytheexpertsof the auctionhousesandtheiropinions A problemderiving from this result, inthecontext of thisevaluation, is that a ation fortheattributionandauthenticationofanartwork A methodological pathtowardsobtaining a subjectiveandobjectiveevalu A technical-material-conservativeanalysis A historicalanamnesisofthework Condition Report containing qualitativebut not quan ------309

CONSERVATION SCIENCE IN CULTURAL HERITAGE 4. Various versions and copies of the Mona Lisa

It is well known that attributions can be revised over the years and that the fre- quent heated debates between experts should in fact openly and synergistically lead to a valid scientific discussion. This is based on a system of attribution and authentication that has to balance the initial subjective evaluation, of unquestiona- ble importance, with an equally indisputable objective evaluation which definitively confirms the scientific truth. Here, then, is how one should proceed in relation to evaluating the versions and copies of the Mona Lisa: an emblematic case also due to the uniqueness of the work, a prototype of the Renaissance genius of Leonardo da Vinci. A number of Leonardesque versions and numerous copies by pupils and / or follow- ers and / or authors referring to the same subject of the Mona Lisa exist. Therefore, to reach a correct opinion, an accurate archival-bibliographic research was carried out in 2015, based on the intense bibliographic material available, which was complemented not only by historical but also technical data. The findings relating to the corresponding subjective and objective evaluation of these works are not only the result of stylistic and aesthetic analyses, but also technical-material ones, obtained using reliable in- novative diagnostic-analytical technologies and carried out by several laboratories1. The research led to selecting a number of the best works. However, before exam- ining them and the relative hypotheses regarding attribution, a necessary distinction must be made. Whether the art works are versions or copies attributable to Leonardo and subject to different evaluation by the experts, it should be noted that the expression “by Leon- ardo” refers to the fact that experts unanimously agree in their judgement on works ref- erable to Leonardo. On the other hand, the expression “attributed to Leonardo” refers to the non-unanimity of the experts in their judgement. This distinction is evidently valid for any author whose work is to be evaluated where there is a corresponding problem of attribution. After an archival-bibliographical research the paintings selected were: • the Mona Lisa, an oil painting on wood completed in 1517 bearing traces of columns on either side of the picture. For this work the experts’ judgement is unani- mous, in particular, for some specific parts: the face, the hands, the embroidery. • It has, however, given rise to another problem relating to the following interpretations: • that the painting initially had columns which were later trimmed to make it fit into a smaller space; • that the painting had no columns and the traces present at the edge could have been added by a restorer taking into consideration another version: the Isleworth Mona Lisa. • the Prado Mona Lisa, an oil painting on wood, executed at the beginning of the 16th century at the same time as the Mona Lisa at the Louvre, set in a Milanese con- text and stylistically close to the work of Leonardo’s pupils, Salai and Melzi; • the Reynolds Mona Lisa, an oil painting on wood, the best of the selected works due to its high quality. It was painted at the beginning of the 17th century in Fontaine- bleu by a French court artist or a visiting artist; • the Isleworth Mona Lisa, an oil painting on canvas, portraying a young Mona Lisa with columns and clearly unfinished. As regards the attribution of the Isleworth Mona Lisa to Leonardo, the Mona Lisa Foundation has retraced the historical events that have accompanied the painting S. Lorusso, A.M. Braida, A. Natali - The different possibilities of evaluating a work art S. Lorusso, A.M. Braida, A. Natali - The different possibilities

310 morality, nobility, chastity, afearofGod,religiosityand,morerarely, culture. from awoman’stherefore, whathadtoemerge portraitwasnotonlybeauty, butalso tutem formadecorat de’of aladyis“PortraitGinevra the motto:“ which, onthereverse,bears Benci” of beauty.meaning links both: theLeonardesque however Leonardo’s oldestportrait two separateportraitsof to the samewoman,it highlight anaspectthat is appropriate versions, oracombinationofboth. of oneortheotherauthentic Lisas, allothersuccessiveMonaLisasareactuallycopies and isspatiallygeometricallyofdifferent dimensions. 12 years) compared to the Louvre Mona Lisa, which reveals a more refined technique, (about – period 11 earlier an from figure a depicts Isleworth the periods: different two Mona Lisas.Inparticular,Reynolds are from thetwoauthenticversionsbyLeonardo and IsleworthMona Lisasandtheir“copies”,thePrado the Louvre other words the odology ledto distinction betweenthe highlighting two “versions” byLeonardo,in – the findings of both the historical-artistic and technical-material analyses. This meth too much point ofview– a pointthatcannotbeemphasised from amethodological and owner the Art of and thereforealreadyhadagoodunderstandingofLeonardo’s artistictechnique. Leonardo”, eventhoughsomedetailsdiffered fromtheLouvreversion. by Lisa”, wasa“version Mona Lisa, i.e.the“Earlier that theIsleworthMona agreed unanimously analysis, aesthetic stylistic and of athorough on thebasis experts who, across theyears.It by reports howin1922thepaintingunderwentaninitialevaluation lated to: worth MonaLisa(Earlier Lisa)asbeinganotherversionbyLeonardoarere In particular, thefollowingconsiderationsrelatedto authenticationoftheIsle This iswhatLeonardobelievedtohavewantedportray. by beauty.It follows thatvirtuepre-existsandisthenadorned In theearly1500s, In reference to the Louvre MonaLisaandthe Isleworth MonaLisa,thoughdepicting 5. Consequently, it can beassumed that, in additionto the Prado andReynoldsMona research [14-15], as previously stated, Our has examined archival-bibliographical − − − − − − − − − − − The groupwascomposedof9experts: date in1913 at anearlier Lisa Mona theLouvre examined This groupofexpertshad Commendatore Marini, Inspector General and Director-General oftheBeaux Commendatore Marini,InspectorGeneralandDirector-General Arts Mr. CesareSegre,well-knowncollector. of thefamous“LedaSpiridon”versionattributedtoLeonardo,nowinUffizi Prof. Adolfo Venturi, well-knownartcriticandauthor Prof. Anto Sciortino,DirectoroftheBritish Academy of Arts inRome Institutes ofItaly, andPresidentofthe1911 Exhibition Dr. GiulioCantalamessa,ChiefDirectoroftheBorgheseGalleryinRome Dr. Arduino Colasanti,FormerDirector-Generalof Antiquities andFine Arts Prof. CommendatoreLorenzoCecconi,Curatorofthe Academy ofSanLuca Mr. Ludovico Spiridon,oneof the most prominent art collectors in Italy of his day, Count SanMartinodiValperga (Piedmont),for many yearsHonoraryPresident Considerations ontheIsleworthMonaLisa(theEarlier MonaLisa) ” (beautyadornsvirtue). Vir - - - - 311

CONSERVATION SCIENCE IN CULTURAL HERITAGE 1. The statements made by Vasari in 1550 and 1568 in which he points out that Leonardo had left the painting of the “Lady on the balcony” unfinished, and that the same painting was finished in 1517. The Louvre version had already been completed in 1517 (for Carlo Pedretti and Pietro Marani 1513). 2. Further evidence of the possible existence of another version of the portrait is a pen and ink sketch by Raphael (Raffaello Sanzio). It depicts a young woman on a balcony with columns dating back to around 1504 and drawn while he was in Florence to observe Leonardo’s work. As the compositional elements are unique and do not appear in any other painting, this Mona Lisa must have been near completion when Raphael saw it in 1504. 3. The stylistic and aesthetic analysis and the artistic technique confirm the figure is a younger one and is evident in: a. the thinner hands and slimmer fingers and, in particular, the more relaxed fore- finger of the right hand; b. the response to the predominant feature of Leonardo’s portraiture, in other words, the contrast between the warmer tones of the hands and the paler complexion of the face and chest; c. Leonardo’s interest in geometry which is clearly shown by the “Golden Ratio”; this is connected to Leonardo’s studies on “divine proportion”, an integral part of many of his works, in particular on the human body2. At times indeed, he seems obsessed by this aspect: his work on the Isleworth Mona Lisa, for example, is commented on by Frà Pietro da Novellara (ambassador of Isabelle d’Este, an important Renaissance figure). He reports that Leonardo was intensely focused on the geometry which was further ac- centuated by the effect given by the glazing, a technique he had perfected after 1508; d. the important relationship between mathematics and art that exists in Leonardo’s work should not be underestimated; its importance is well-documented in numerous letters, papers and notes. 4. The innovative investigative technique on what was not visible and revealed that both the Louvre and Isleworth portraits were painted by the same author; this is in reference to the oil painting technique of using successive layers of glazing which produced transparent veils of colour and shading defined ‘sfumato’. Professor John Asmus of California University and Professor Vadim Parfenov of St. Petersburg Elettrotechnical University [13] have recently applied their well-prov- en method on various copies of the Mona Lisa, including the two Mona Lisa paintings of the Louvre and Isleworth. The method measures the brushstrokes related to the “sfumato” and the “chiaroscuro” of the faces by analyzing the distribution of billions of pixels of the histograms obtained by multispectral digitization. In this regard, the measurements were directed in particular to the mouth, nose and eyes, as they rep- resent distinctive areas on which artists preferentially use their brushstrokes. They have therefore been defined as “fingerprints”. In the case of the various copies each was distinctly different from another. The exception related to the faces of the Mona Lisa of the Louvre and Isleworth for which Prof. Asmus stated that there is a 99% certainty that these two paintings were executed by the same author. In this regard, it is also possible to provide a quantitative value for the “sfumato” by instrumentally determining the trichromatic coordinates of the differences in colour of the colored surfaces using a spectrophotometric colorimeter, bearing in mind a chro- maticity diagram, in other words: L = brightness (which decreases from the brightest to the darkest portions), h = hue, C * = saturation [15]. S. Lorusso, A.M. Braida, A. Natali - The different possibilities of evaluating a work art S. Lorusso, A.M. Braida, A. Natali - The different possibilities

312 University ofBologna(Italy) with theuseofportableandnon-portableequipment, ples takenfromtheartefact,inDiagnosticLaboratory for CulturalHeritageofthe St. PetersburgintheMuseumwherepaintingwaslocated and,inpart,onsam skills toleadonefinalresult. their together andintegrating working and technician-diagnostician, well asaphysicist provide areliableanswerbasedonsubjectiveandobjective evaluation. artistically and was toidentify itsexecution Its purpose technique. the pictorial izing (Figure 2). on canvas“MonaLisawithcolumns”fromaprivatecollection to anoilpainting applied of hismostimportantworks. definitive proofisinthepresenceofearthpigments,umbers,Siennas and,inthisregard, and theories Isleworth MonaLisaremainsfaithfultohisindications “ he himselfwroteinhis instructions follow themeticulous colours closely and applied their availabilityandusesincethebeginningof16thcentury. have also identified the complete range of pigments and other media used, highlighting and thecolour;they the priming for thepainting, the applications including applied, canvas supportonwhichathin layerofhardgypsumwas ration oftheaforementioned of his1470studies. teristics asthesupportusedbyLeonardoto paint hisfamousdraperiesinthe context completed in1517). lated after subtracting the 11 years difference from the year Louvre MonaLisawas younger thantheLouvreMonaLisa,datingitto about 1505-06(thisistheyearcalcu Lisasare Mona andIsleworth woman atdifferentof thesame Louvre 11-12approximately being ages,theIsleworth years the of portraits the that confirmed technique to art. ofaparticularforensictechnique sion Project”,involvedtheapplication The is notadirectcopy. it evidencing thus and film pictorial the underlying drawings preparatory some vealed re which (LAM), Method Amplification Layer technique, multispectral non-invasive a difficult tocopyhispaintings. methodological path responding toprinciplesofinnovation andreliabilityaccordingtothecorrect Treatise 5. In January 2011, a Frenchengineer, Pascal Cotte, examined thepaintingusing in Leonardo’sintangible This issomething why itisso worksandthemainreason The historical and diagnostic-analytical investigations were carried out, partly in The studywasconductedwiththehelpofachemist,arthistorian andrestoreras the constituentmaterialsandcharacter wasaimedatidentifying The examination was attribution regarding answer final a reach to followed path methodological The 6.  (Fe 9. Ultimately, Leonardo’s palette, the manner andsequencewithwhich hemixed 8. have ascertainedthetechniquesusedinprepa investigations The analytical 7. linenor The Reims canvashasthe support material,hand-woven samecharac 6. by JoeMullinsin2012forthe“Regres Another investigativemethoddeveloped Lisa withcolumns” On the attribution of the oil painting on canvas: theSt. Petersburg “Mona 2 O ” in the section devotedto painting. It is evident that Leonardo’s palette for the 3 al 40% + Mn O 2 al 15% + Si + Al 2 O 3 ) which were used by Leonardo in some were usedbyLeonardo ) which ------313

CONSERVATION SCIENCE IN CULTURAL HERITAGE Figure 2. Oil painting on canvas, St. Petersburg “Mona Lisa with columns”

that must distinguish the complete intervention. Following the investigations and the corresponding findings, some considerations were made on the work in question and a comparison made with Leonardo’s “Mona Lisa” exhibited at the Louvre in Paris. A summary of the results is given below. • In the case of the St. Petersburg Mona Lisa with columns, the support is a linen canvas with a coarse irregular texture, its size being compatible with the “standard” one that was commonly found from the first half of the 1600s in the Flemish region. The Louvre Mona Lisa is instead on wood. • The materials used for the preparation, in the case of the St. Petersburg Mona Lisa with columns, can be traced to a German-Flemish practice used between 1620- 1680 in a Parisian context. Leonardo, on the contrary, used a preparatory layer made of plaster. • The colored primer found in the St. Petersburg Mona Lisa with columns was used starting from the second half of the 1500s. • The dating of the canvas support of the St. Petersburg Mona Lisa with columns to between 1520-1660 and therefore excludes the period of life and work of Leonardo (1452-1519). It was possible to conclude that the painting of the St. Petersburg “Mona Lisa with columns” represents a copy of the work “Mona Lisa” by Leonardo, referable to a period between 1590 and 1660. However, it is important to highlight the good workmanship, its readability and the expressiveness that emanates from the work, albeit with inad- S. Lorusso, A.M. Braida, A. Natali - The different possibilities of evaluating a work art S. Lorusso, A.M. Braida, A. Natali - The different possibilities equate brushstrokes and devoid of the thickness in the colours Leonardo typically

314 [2]. [1]. 2 1 integration ofknowledgethemind,heartandhandsinsciencelife” process ofevaluating,attributingandauthenticatingaworkart. with the or techniciansdealing such, areferenceforexpertswhethertheybehistorians years withtheaidofgrammarbooksanddictionaries. false. In fact, he wasnot educated inthe use of Latin, but self-taught himselfoverthe ated for the first time by an international group of specialists, proves these claims to be of direct claimed thisconditionofilliteracy,with thevalue contrastingthewisdomoflearned at that to readtheclassics.For time, therest was indispensableof his life,Leonardo which wastaughtto those whoundertooka profession inlawor medicine andwhich, sanza lettere influenced bytheFrenchschool[15]. general, whichisofamodestdesign. in of thebackground with regardtotherendering particularly used inhislandscapes,

Its execution is, ultimately, of Nordic derivation, specifically German-Flemish, and is References Notes This finally brings us back to the title of the editorial in this issue of the Journal: This makesofLeonardoanemblematicexample humility andgeniusand,as It is true that equally today, the complete reconstructionof his personallibrary, cre a as himself defined proudly and polemically Leonardo that known well is It He wasageniusbuthadnoknowledgeofLatin. 7.

Conclusion Lorusso S.,MatteucciC.,Natali A. (2006).Sullaattribuzioneesullostatodiconser culturali, PitagoraEditrice,Bologna. ambientale: alcunicasidistudionelsettore diagnostiche e dei beni monitoraggio 28-30 Settembre.Florence:Nardini.(vol.,pp.679–688)ISBN 8840441506. vazione di tre dipinti: anamnesi, confronto, valutazione. In: Lo stato dell’arte. Siena, the Vitruvian ManbyLeonardo,isanexcellentexample. the differentbetween relationship parts,suchasthetrunkandlegs. of drawing The pencil Lisa Foundation by theMona on samplestakenfromtheIsleworthMonaLisa,asreportedin publication it also includes the analytical researchconductedby Hermann KuhnandMaurizioSeracini Gallery in a thus London, comparison to allowing be madewithotherworksby Leonardo; décodé” the studiescollectedincompendium in 2004by the “Research and RestorationCenterof the Museums of France” includedin These studies indicate that the human body constitutes the most aesthetically beautiful These studiesindicatethatthehumanbodyconstitutesmost aesthetically This refers to the sequence of investigations on theMonaLisainLouvrecarriedout of investigations This referstothesequence Lorusso S., Matteucci C., Natali Lorusso A. (2007). analitico- storica, indagini Anamnesi sperientia . by the The investigationswereexaminedtogetherwiththoseindicated National i.e. as having no regular school education and no knowledge of Latin, and noknowledge no regularschooleducation i.e.ashaving , i.e.theabilitytoinvestigatenatureguidedsolelybyobservation. “Leonardo daVinci’s EarlierMonaLisa” “Au coeur de La Joconde – Leonardo da Vinci– Leonardo “Au coeurdeLaJoconde [13]. . homo “The - - 315

CONSERVATION SCIENCE IN CULTURAL HERITAGE [3]. Lorusso S., Matteucci C., Natali A., Visco V. (2007) Diagnosis and digitization of Dantesque Code “Phillipps 9589”. Quaderni di Scienza della Conservazione. vol. 7; Pitagora Editrice, Bologna. [4]. Lorusso S., Natali A., Apicella S.A., Livigni V., Scandagliato D. (2013). Conside- razioni storico-artistiche sull’attribuzione del dipinto San Francesco Stimmatizza- to a Tiziano Vecellio, Il giornale delle prove non distruttive monitoraggio diagno- stica (Organo ufficiale dell’AIPnD), anno XXXIV, N. 3 – Settembre 2013 [5]. Lorusso S., Matteucci C., Natali A., Apicella S., (2013) Traditional and non-tra- ditional. innovative and ephemeral materials and techniques in today’s cultural heritage, Russian Chemical Bulletin. International Edition, Vol. 62, No. 7, pp. 1671-1681, July 2013 ISSN: 1066-5285 (Print) 1573-9171 (Online) [6]. Lorusso S., Natali A., Palla F. (2015) Risk Management in the Cultural Heritage Sector: Museums, Libraries, Archives, Mimesis Edizioni, Milano-Udine [7]. Lorusso S., Barone V., Colizzi L., Fonseca C.D. (2014) Analytical-diagnostic and computing technologies for the attribution, authentication and economic evalu- ation of art works, Conservation Science in Cultural Heritage. vol. 14. Mimesis Edizioni, Milano-Udine [8]. Lorusso S. (2014) Critical Heritage in Cross-Cultural Perspectives. Interdisci- plinarity, Internationalization and Social Media in Cultural Heritage: Some Case Studies, Conservation Science in Cultural Heritage. vol. 14. Mimesis Edizioni, Milano-Udine [9]. Lorusso S., Matteucci C., Natali A., Pentrella R., Lopardi A. (2008). Indagini chi- mico-fisiche e diagnostiche sugli apparati decorativi di Palazzo Rivera a L’Aquila. Materiali e strutture, vol. 9-10; p. 108-128., ISSN: 1121-2373 [10]. Lorusso S., Matteucci C., Natali A. (2011) The Shroud of Turin between history and science: an ongoing debate, Conservation Science in Cultural Heritage. vol. 11. Mimesis Edizioni, Milano-Udine [11]. Lorusso S., Matteucci C., Natali A. (2010) Il mercato dell’arte e le case d’asta: valutazione diagnostico-analitica e economico-finanziaria. L’autentico, il falso, il riprodotto nel settore dei beni culturali. Bologna, Pitagora Editrice. p. 1-208, ISBN:88-371-1797-3 [12]. Lorusso S., Natali A. (2014), Le diverse tipologie di riproduzione nell’arte, in “Il diritto dell’arte. La protezione del patrimonio artistico” a cura di Negri-Clementi G., Stabile S., Skira, Ginevra-Milano, pp.155-167, ISBN 978-88-572-2627-9 [13]. The Mona Lisa Foundation (2018) Leonardo da Vinci’s Earlier Mona Lisa, 5th Edition, August 2018, The Mona Lisa Foundation, Zurich, Switzerland. [14]. Lorusso S., Natali A. (2015) Mona Lisa: A Comparative Evaluation of the Differ- ent Versions and Their Copies. Conservation Science in Cultural Heritage. vol. 15, pp. 57-109 ISBN: 978-88-5753-547-0. Mimesis Edizioni, Milano-Udine [15]. Lorusso S., Matteucci C., Natali A., Apicella S., Fiorillo F.L. (2013) Diagnostic- analytical study of the painting “Gioconda with columns” Conservation Science in Cultural Heritage. vol. 13, pp. 75-127 ISSN: 1974-4951. Mimesis Edizioni, Milano-Udine. S. Lorusso, A.M. Braida, A. Natali - The different possibilities of evaluating a work art S. Lorusso, A.M. Braida, A. Natali - The different possibilities

316

Foreign MemberoftheRussian Academy ofNaturalSciences;EmeritusProfessor columns” (St.Petersburg),establishingthatitwasacopy, albeitawell-executedone. with Lisa “Mona on canvas to the painting was applied approach cise methodological experimental perspective,inorder to provide ananswerregardingattribution,a pre versions. Finally,Mona Lisasorofthetwoauthentic of previous either copies froman sidered to be the most complete andqualitatively better than manyothers, are infact Mona Lisas. Lisa) andthetwocopies,i.e.PradoReynolds The lattertwo,con by Leonardo,i.e. the Louvre MonaLisaandtheIsleworth(orEarlier a methodological pointofview. from analyses technical-material and historical-artistic the of findings the account into taking and research, bibliographic and archival on in-depth the examination ing prototype oftheRenaissancegeniusLeonardodaVinci, isexamined. order toarriveataunivocalscientifictruth. in evaluation and objective necessarily leadtoasubjective mental skillswhichshould and technical-experi work ofart.It is alsonecessarytointegratehistorical-humanistic in thecontextofdifferentof artworkattribution,and a of evaluating possibilities thedifferentto distinguish used the terminology the system of certaintywithin degrees istheimportanceof currently thesubjectofheateddebate.Whatmust be highlighted the contextofprotectionandvalorizationculturalenvironmentalheritage. environment-biota” anddiagnostic,analytical,technicaleconomicevaluationwithin “system-artifact- the of study the with mainly deals work scientific His Heritage”. tural and isEditor-in-Chiefof,thehistorical-technicalJournal“ConservationScienceinCul Bologna andremainedheadoftheLaboratoryforeighteenyears.In2001,hefounded, Diagnostic Laboratory for Cultural Heritage at the Ravenna Campus of the University of ing commodityscience,culturalheritageandenvironment.In1997,hefoundedthe tions innationalandinternationaljournalsof22volumesmonographscover the sectorofculturalandenvironmentalheritage.Heisauthorover430publica to pertaining issues specific the to relating series book two of director and founder the His biographyappearsinthe2016MarquisEditionofWho’s WhointheWorld. Heis lished in1839).DirettoreGeneraleofthe Accademia dellaCulturaEnogastronomica. and now, a Councilor of the Società Italiana per il Progresso delle Scienze (SIPS-estab the Faculty of Arts, Lomonosov Moscow State University, Russia; former Vice-president of the Academy of Social Science of Zhejiang University, China; Visiting Professor of the Cultural Heritage Institute of Zhejiang University, China; former Visiting Professor Salvatore Lorusso Biographical notes The findings have highlighted the distinction between the two authentic versions authentic two the between distinction the highlighted have findings The At the sametime, the versionsandcopiesof the MonaLisaarealsostudied,bas of thework, the MonaLisa, case,alsoowingtotheuniqueness As anemblematic one, andis known of worksartisawell and authentication The topicofattribution Summary is a former full Professor of the University of Bologna. He is ------317

CONSERVATION SCIENCE IN CULTURAL HERITAGE